time for new tires: how tall and how skinny?

[napjulius]

greetings and salutations,

after much reading and time on the forum i have come to the conclusion that i don't know.

I'm planning on getting a new set of tires but don't want to go stock again; but not wider either. I like the tall skinnies/pizza cutter look. I'm thinking 265 75 16 AT but will the 245 75's work ok on stock rims? (255 seem to me MT only) why?: i like the looks plus $$ cheaper and maybe, just maybe better on the MPG (hahaha! yeah right)

My LC is weekend use only since i drive my company's vehicle DD. I don't do off road/rock crawling hence all stock but i like long trips. I plan on visiting the SW for the first time, grand canyon-monument valley etc.

so will the 245's fit? i have my eyes on the toyo AT open country or the cooper discoverer s-t. (maybe kuhmo venture)

thanks,

drs

 

[UCBerzerkeley]

Go 255/85/16 and don't look back. they are roughly a 33" tire. If you can only find MTs in the 255, there are still some fine choices. I made a partial list some time ago, and I know there are more out there, but here is at least a few to look into -

The following make tires in the 255/85/16 size:
BFG MT --> very nice
***Maxxis MT-762 Bighorn --> very nice
Summit MUD dAWG -- Nice
*Cooper Discover ST --> very skinny, even for 255, but AT/MT cross
Dayton Timberline A/T
**Interco Trxus MT --> very nice
Dunlop Radial Rover RVXT
Toyo M55
Toyo Open Country MT --> very nice
National Chapparal A/P
Goodyear Wrangler A/T

I would really suggest the 255/85 for tall skinny over the other tires you listed. 255/85 is sort of the mid-sized epitome of "tall and skinny," and one of the most popular expedition tires. GL!

 

[reverie]

245 would be shorter than the original tires.

The only tire on your list that qualifies as tall and skinny is the 255/85.

You will probably want 7 or 7.5 inch rims for those 255s.

 

[Hayes]

That second number is the one you need to pay attention to if you want them tall and skinny.
Both the 265/75 and the 245/75 you mention have the same aspect ratio.
The higher the aspect ratio, the skinnier the tire--more or less.

Hence the 255/85/16 mentioned by UCBerzerkeley

 

[UCBerzerkeley]

That second number is the one you need to pay attention to if you want them tall and skinny.
Both the 265/75 and the 245/75 you mention have the same aspect ratio.
The higher the aspect ratio, the skinnier the tire--more or less.

Hence the 255/85/16 mentioned by UCBerzerkeley

Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first number is the tire width in millimeters, and the second is the percent of the first in mm, measured from the edge of the rim outward.

This explains why 255/85 are "tall and skinny" compared to a 285/75 tire. The are roughly the same height, around 33, but the 255 is much skinnier (30mm) than the 285s. You can tell they are roughly the same height just by multiplying it out -

255 * .85 = 216.75mm + 16" rim
285 * .75 = 213.75mm + 16" rim

So although the tire is 30mm narrower, it is 3mm taller (all rough estimates, exact tire dimensions vary by manufacturer)

 

[TroutBear]

It may come down to deciding whther an AT or MT is the direction based on where you're headed on weekends - won't know, we're in the SE. Our BFG 265/75-16's are a great tire for a daily driver rig, also much loved by friends w/ more seriously built 80's as well. If BFG had the AT in 255/85, I'd have gone w/ those; they don't and the 265/75 was a next choice.

 

[ThePookieBear]

Ashooter has some pretty good threads. If you've settled on tall and skinny, then I'm sure your search has showed him up. But... if not... check him out. His whole rig is downright gorgeous. (Yes, I know that borders on heresy, but gorgeous it is.)

 

[cartercd]

The tire diameter in inches is calculated as:

(section width in mm x aspect ratio x 2) / 25.4 + rim diameter in inches.

So 255/85 - 16 is: 255 x .85 x 2 / 25.4 + 16 = 33.1.

 

[maybe_a_80...]

If you're going for the skinny tire look on an 80 and you're going to roll a lot of miles, you'll be very comfortable with a roughly 33" tall 255/85 tire on your rig.

The 255/85, being 33" tall, also fills out the wheel wells on the 80 series very nicely, the tires won't look too small under the truck.

With the narrow overall width of the 255/85s, the tires won't weigh that much more than stock, so you won't be increasing the weight the engine needs to turn over for a RPM by as much as with a larger tire, like a 285/75. again, that narrower tread footprint decreases friction with the road surface in comparison with a wider tire, so gas mileage should, once again, change just slightly if at all.

good luck with your tire selection!

 

[schlaker]

255/85 - perfect size, just not a lot of choices.

 

[tblume]

yup, 255/85 is perfect, I think they would have fit under the rig stock but I found mediums for a good deal...

 

[Red Sox Cruiser]

I would suggest you take a serious look at the Bridgestone Revo's

 

[Tools R Us]

I love my tall and skinny tires, their 37x12.5 or 325/85.

 

[Atoyot1031]

First of all, welcome!!!

Where you live can be a huge determining factor in what type of tire you run regardless of if you plan on wheeling it or not. Also, do you plan on having a lot of gear in the vehicle? If so, you might not want a taller tire as you will lose some of your mechanical advantage. What is the year of your 80? a 3FE won't be as much fun either with taller tires. Of course, if you already have a SC (like some do), then a taller tire might not be an issue. Give us some info.

Oh yeah, this thread is useless without pics!

 

[napjulius]

thanks guys

my idea of tall-skinny/pizza cutter meant anything narrower and taller than stock thus my belief 245-75's and 265-75 were both tall skinny because stock is 275-70-16. now, with the help of UCBerzerkeley and cartercd and others, i know there is more math involved than i thought.

so basically 255-85 is the bare minimum to be considered tall-skinny, i read somewhere here. i would buy the 255-85 if it weren't for the fact they are way more expensive and all MTs.

the truth is that i was thinking of going 265-75 before this post, thats when i saw a chevy double cab with what struck me as odd tires. i bend over to read the measurements (people looked at me like i was crazy!) and read 245-75-16.

thats when i thought of putting those on mine. but i guess i cant since they're too narrow for stock rims right? or is it possible to put the 245-75 on stock without a problem? still confused about that part.

thanks everyone

-drs

 

[dafun1]

Also Remington now makes the Mud Brute in a 255/85R16. It is the tallest out there at 33.6x10.8 with a tread width of 7.9 and is a dunlop mud rover just put under the Remington name (goodyear owns them both and you might notice that dunlop does not have this size listed anymore for the mud rover). Another choice not mentioned on the previous 255/85 list.

 

[reverie]

245/75 - 16 is: 245 x .75 x 2 / 25.4 + 16 = 30.4" tall
245 /2.54 = 9.6" wide

Your stock tires are 31"x10.50.

They will be skinnier and shorter.

 

[Tools R Us]

... but i guess i cant since they're too narrow for stock rims right? ...

IMHO, yes, but it depends on your plans for the rig. For wheeling I prefer the old rule of 2/3, for example a 12" tire on a 8" rim. When a narrow tire is mounted on a wide rim the rim edges/tire sidewalls are much more exposed to damage, a higher chance of debris getting jammed between bead and rim or rolling the bead off when aired down. Some big tire chains will no longer mount this combo, but the only real downside is crown wear, the center of the tire wearing slightly faster.

 

[HntWhtTail]

I too am into the pizza cutter look, I had 33x9.5's on my 60. They were dean sxt they make them in a 255 sxt mud terrains, not too aggressive very quiet on pavement, mine were siped and did very good in snow, not as good in the mud as the pro comps the 80 came with. If I can get Les Schwab to match I will probably be getting a set in the near future